Executive Summary
New Graph Environment was retained by the Habitat Conservation Trust, the Provincial Fish Passage Remediation Program and the Canadian Wildlife Federation in 2020 to plan and conduct fish passage and habitat confirmation assessments at road-stream crossings as part of connectivity restoration planning. Although planning was conducted for both the Morice River watershed group and the Bulkley River watershed group, on the ground surveys in 2020 focused primarily within Bulkley River tributaries.
A total of 31 Phase 1 assessments were conducted with 13 crossings considered “passable”, 3 crossings considered “potential” barriers and 15 crossings considered “barriers” according to threshold values based on culvert embedment, outlet drop, slope, diameter (relative to channel size) and length.
Habitat confirmation assessments were conducted at 23 sites with a total of approximately 18 km of stream assessed. Thirteen crossings were rated as high priorities for proceeding to design for replacement, 7 crossings were rated as moderate priorities for proceeding to design for replacement, 3 crossings were rated as a low priority.
1 Introduction
The health and viability of freshwater fish populations can depend on access to tributary and off channel areas which provide refuge during high flows, opportunities for foraging, overwintering habitat, spawning habitat and summer rearing habitat (Bramblett et al. 2002; Swales and Levings 1989; Diebel et al. 2015). Culverts can present barriers to fish migration due to low water depth, increased water velocity, turbulence, a vertical drop at the culvert outlet and/or maintenance issues (Slaney, Zaldokas, and Watershed Restoration Program (B.C.) 1997; Cote et al. 2005). Reconnection of fragmented habitats by culvert removal or replacement is a management action that can generate high ecological returns relative to other habitat restoration techniques (Saldi-Caromile et al. 2004; Roni, Hanson, and Beechie 2008). As road crossing structures are commonly upgraded or removed there are numerous opportunities to restore connectivity by ensuring that fish passage considerations are incorporated into repair, replacement and deactivation designs.
2 Background
Test out a link
As a result of high-level direction from the provincial government, a Fish Passage Strategic Approach protocol has been developed for British Columbia to ensure that the greatest opportunities for restoration of fish passage are pursued. A Fish Passage Technical Working Group has been formed to coordinate the protocol and data is continuously amalgamated within the Provincial Steam Crossing Inventory System (PSCIS). The strategic approach protocol involves a four-phase process as described in Fish Passage Technical Working Group (2014) :
- Phase 1: Fish Passage Assessment – Fish stream crossings within watersheds with high fish values are assessed to determine barrier status of structures and document a general assessment of adjacent habitat quality and quantity.
- Phase 2: Habitat Confirmation – Assessments of crossings prioritized for follow up in Phase 1 studies are conducted to confirm quality and quantity of habitat upstream and down as well as to scope for other potential nearby barriers that could affect the practicality of remediation.
- Phase 3: Design – Site plans and designs are drawn for priority crossings where high value fish habitat has been confirmed.
- Phase 4: Remediation – Reconnection of isolated habitats through replacement, rehabilitation or removal of prioritized crossing structure barriers.
2.1 Project Location
The project area includes the Bulkley River and Morice River watershed groups (Figure 2.1) and is within the traditional territories of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en. The valley bottom has seen extensive settlement over the past hundred years with major population centers including the Village of Hazelton, the Town of Smithers, the Village of Telkwa and the District Municipality of Houston. The watersheds are within the Skeena, Stikine, and the Nadina Natural Resource Districts.
The Bukley River is an 8th order stream that drains an area of 7,762 km2 in a generally northerly direction from Bulkley Lake on the Nechako Plateau to its confluence with the Skeena River at Hazleton. It has a mean annual discharge of 139.4 m3/s at station 08EE004 located near Quick and 19.6 m3/s at station 08EE003 located upstream near Houston. Flow patterns are typical of high elevation watersheds on the west side of the northern Rocky Mountains which receive large amounts of precipitation as snow leading to peak levels of discharge during snowmelt, typically from May to July (Figures 2.2 - 2.3).
Figure 2.1: Overview map of Study Areas
Figure 2.2: Hydrograph for Bulkley River at Quick (Station #08EE004 - daily discharge data from 1930 to 2018) and near Houston (Station #08EE003 - daily discharge data from 1980 to 2018.
Figure 2.3: Summary of hydrology statistics for Bulkley River at Quick (Station #08EE004) and near Houston (Station #08EE003).
2.2 Wet’suwet’en
Wet’suwet’en hereditary territory covers an area of 22,000km2 including the Bulkley River and Morice River watersheds and portions of the Nechako River watershed. The Wet’suwet’en people are a matrilineal society organized into the Gilseyhu (Big Frog), Laksilyu (Small Frog), Tsayu (Beaver clan), Gitdumden (Wolf/Bear) and Laksamshu (Fireweed) clans. Within each of the clans there are are a number of kin-based groups known as Yikhs or House groups. The Yikh is a partnership between the people and the territory. Thirteen Yikhs with Hereditary Chiefs manage a total of 38 distinct territories upon which they have jurisdiction. Within a clan, the head Chief is entrusted with the stewardship of the House territory to ensure the Land is managed in a sustainable manner. Inuk Nu’at’en (Wet’suwet’en law) governing the harvesting of fish within their lands are based on values founded on thousands of years of social, subsistence and environmental dynamics. The Yintahk (Land) is the centre of life as well as culture and it’s management is intended to provide security for sustaining salmon, wildlife, and natural foods to ensure the health and well-being of the Wet’suwet’en (Office of the Wet’suwet’en 2013; “Office of the Wet’suwet’en” 2021; FLNRORD 2017).
2.3 Gitxsan
The Gitxsan Laxyip (traditional territories) covers an area of 33,000km2 within the Skeena River and Nass River watersheds. The Laxyip is governed by 60 Simgiigyet (Hereditary Chiefs), within the traditional hereditary system made up of Wilps (House groups). Traditional governance of the Gitxsan is guided by the principles of Ayookw (Gitxsan law) (“Gitxsan Huwilp Government” 2021).
2.4 Fisheries
Figure 2.4: Summary of historic salmonid observations vs. stream gradient category for the Bulkley River watershed group.
Figure 2.5: Summary of historic salmonid observations vs. channel width category for the Bulkley River watershed group.
Figure 2.6: Summary of historic salmonid observations vs. watershed size category for the Bulkley River watershed group.
3 Methods
Workflows for the project have been classified into planning, fish passage assessments, habitat confirmation assessments and reporting. All components leveraged the R programming language and environment for statistical computing to facilitate workflow tracking and reproducibility (R Core Team 2020).
3.1 Planning
To identify priorities for crossing structure rehabilitation, background literature, fisheries information, PSCIS, Fish Habitat Model outputs modified from Norris and Mount (2016) and bcfishpass (Norris 2020b) outputs were reviewed. The Fish Habitat Model was developed by the BC Ministry of Environment to provide estimates of the amount of fish habitat potentially accessible to fish upstream of crossing locations. The model calculates the average gradient of BC Freshwater Atlas stream network lines at minimum 100m long intervals starting from the downstream end of the streamline segment and working upstream. The network lines are broken into max gradient categories with new segments created when the average gradient of the stream lines exceeds user provided gradient thresholds.
bcfishpass is comprised of sql and python based shell script libraries that “generate a simple model of aquatic habitat connectivity by identifying natural barriers to fish passage (plus hydro dams that are not feasible to remediate) and classifying all streams not upstream of these barriers as ‘potentially accessible’” (Norris 2020b). On potentially accessible streams, bcfishpass scripts “identify known barriers and additional anthropogenic features (primarily road/railway stream crossings, i.e. culverts) that are potentially barriers. To prioritize these features for assessment or remediation,” the scripts “report on how much modelled potentially accessible aquatic habitat the barriers may obstruct. The model can be refined with known fish observations. Depending on the modelling scenario, all aquatic habitat downstream of a given fish observation can be classified as ‘observed accessible’, overriding any downstream barriers.”
Following delineation of “non-fish habitat” with the Fish Habitat Model, the average gradient of each stream segment within habitat classified as below the 22% threshold was calculated and summed using bcfishpass to quantify upstream habitat potentially available for salmonids and facilitate stream line symbology based on stream morphology. bcfishpass summed average gradients of stream network line segments within seven categories (0 - 3%, 3 - 5%, 5 - 8%, 8 - 15%, 15 - 22%, 22 - 30% and >30%) with these outputs further amalgamated to summarize and symbolize potential upstream habitat in four categories: riffle/cascade (0 - 5%), step-pool (5 - 15%), step-pool very steep (15-22%) and extremely steep (22 - 30%) (Table 3.1). For each crossing location, the the area of lake and wetland habitat upstream, species documented upstream and an estimate of watershed area was also collated using bcfishpass, fwapg (Norris 2020c) and bcfishobs (Norris 2020a) to provide an indication of the potential quantity and quality of habitat potentially gained should fish passage be restored.
| Gradient | Channel Type |
|---|---|
| 0 - 5% | Riffle and cascade pool |
| 5 - 15% | Step pool |
| 15 - 22% | Step pool - very steep |
| 22 - 30% | Step pool - extremely steep (bull trout only) |
| >30% | Non fish habitat |
To prepare for Phase 1 and 2 assessments in the study area, past fish passage assessment reports for the Bulkley River and Morice River watershed groups were first reviewed to identify crossing structures not yet assessed or previously ranked as priorities for rehabilitation (Casselman and Stanley 2010; Irvine 2018; McCarthy and Fernando 2015; Smith 2018; Wilson and Rabnett 2007). To determine which of those crossings had not yet been assessed with Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments we cross-referenced these reports with the PSCIS database, available background info and viewed sites within the output of the Fish Habitat Model and bcfishpass. Outputs for modelled and PSCIS crossings (barriers and potential barriers) that met the following criteria underwent a detailed review to facilitate prioritization for Phase1 - Fish Passage Assessments and Phase 2 - Habitat Confirmations.
- Confirmed fish presence upstream of the structure.
- Stream width documented as > 2.0m in PSCIS.
- Linear lengths of modelled upstream habitat <22% gradient for ≥1km for PSCIS crossings or ≥2km for modelled crossings.
- Crossings located on streams classified as 3rd order or higher.
- Crossings located on streams with >5 ha of modeled wetland and/or lake habitat upstream.
- Habitat value rated as “medium” or “high” in PSCIS.
3.2 Fish Passage Assessments
In the field, crossings prioritized for follow-up were first assessed for fish passage following the procedures outlined in “Field Assessment for Determining Fish Passage Status of Closed Bottomed Structures” (MoE 2011). Crossings surveyed included closed bottom structures (CBS), open bottom structures (OBS) and crossings considered “other” (i.e. fords). Photos were taken at surveyed crossings and when possible included images of the road, crossing inlet, crossing outlet, crossing barrel, channel downstream and channel upstream of the crossing and any other relevant features. The following information was recorded for all surveyed crossings: date of inspection, crossing reference, crew member initials, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates, stream name, road name and kilometer, road tenure information, crossing type, crossing subtype, culvert diameter or span for OBS, culvert length or width for OBS. A more detailed “full assessment” was completed for all closed bottom structures and included the following parameters: presence/absence of continuous culvert embedment (yes/no), average depth of embedment, whether or not the culvert bed resembled the native stream bed, presence of and percentage backwatering, fill depth, outlet drop, outlet pool depth, inlet drop, culvert slope, average downstream channel width, stream slope, presence/absence of beaver activity, presence/absence of fish at time of survey, type of valley fill, and a habitat value rating. Habitat value ratings were based on channel morphology, flow characteristics (perennial, intermittent, ephemeral), fish migration patterns, the presence/absence of deep pools, un-embedded boulders, substrate, woody debris, undercut banks, aquatic vegetation and overhanging riparian vegetation (Table 3.2). For crossings determined to be potential barriers or barriers based on the data (see Barrier Scoring), a culvert fix and recommended diameter/span was proposed.
| Habitat Value | Fish Habitat Criteria |
|---|---|
| High | The presence of high value spawning or rearing habitat (e.g., locations with abundance of suitably sized gravels, deep pools, undercut banks, or stable debris) which are critical to the fish population. |
| Medium | Important migration corridor. Presence of suitable spawning habitat. Habitat with moderate rearing potential for the fish species present. |
| Low | No suitable spawning habitat, and habitat with low rearing potential (e.g., locations without deep pools, undercut banks, or stable debris, and with little or no suitably sized spawning gravels for the fish species present). |
3.2.1 Barrier Scoring
Fish passage potential was determined for each stream crossing identified as a closed bottom structure as per MoE (2011). The combined scores from five criteria: depth and degree to which the structure is embedded, outlet drop, stream width ratio, culvert slope, and culvert length were used to screen whether each culvert was a likely barrier to some fish species and life stages (Table 3.3, Table 3.4. These criteria were developed based on data obtained from various studies and reflect an estimation for the passage of a juvenile salmon or small resident rainbow trout (Clarkin et al. 2005 ; Bell 1991; Thompson 2013).
| Risk | LOW | MOD | HIGH |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embedded | >30cm or >20% of diameter and continuous | <30cm or 20% of diameter but continuous | No embedment or discontinuous |
| Value | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| Outlet Drop (cm) | <15 | 15-30 | >30 |
| Value | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| SWR | <1.0 | 1.0-1.3 | >1.3 |
| Value | 0 | 3 | 6 |
| Slope (%) | <1 | 1-3 | >3 |
| Value | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| Length (m) | <15 | 15-30 | >30 |
| Value | 0 | 3 | 6 |
| Cumlative Score | Result |
|---|---|
| 0-14 | passable |
| 15-19 | potential barrier |
| >20 | barrier |
3.2.2 Cost Benefit Analysis
A cost benefit analysis was conducted for each crossing determined to be a barrier based on an estimate of cost associated with remediation or replacement of the crossing with a structure that facilitates fish passage and the amount of potential habitat that would be made available by remediating fish passage at the site (habitat gain index).
3.2.2.1 Habitat Gain Index
The habitat gain index is the quantity of modelled habitat upstream of the subject crossing and represents an estimate of habitat gained with remediation of fish passage at the crossing. For this project, a gradient threshold between accessible and non-accessible habitat was set at 20% (for a minimimum length of 100m) intended to represent the maximum gradient of which anadromous species are likely to be able to migrate upstream. For Phase 1 assessments a “net” value of habitat quantity output from bcfishpass was used to estimate the amount of habitat upstream of each crossing less than 20% gradient before either a falls of height >5m - as recorded in MoE (2020b), a road-stream crossing recorded in PSCIS as a barrier, or a modelled unassessed crossing. For Phase 2 assessments, to provide a conservative estimate of habitat to be potentially gained by fish passage restoration, the amount of habitat upstream of each crossing was estimated by measuring the amount of mainstem and stream segments > 1st order upstream of the crossing using the measure tool within QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2009).
Potential options to remediate fish passage were selected from MoE (2011) and included:
- Removal (RM) - Complete removal of the structure and deactivation of the road.
- Open Bottom Structure (OBS) - Replacement of the culvert with a bridge or other open bottom structure. For this project we considered bridges as the only viable option for OBS type based on consultation with FLNR road crossing engineering experts. It should be noted however, that box culverts could be considered a viable and economical option as they have been observed as successfully facilitating fish passage on the west coast of the province (Betty Rebellato, Canadian Wildlife Federation - Project Biologist).
- Streambed Simulation (SS) - Replacement of the structure with a streambed simulation design culvert. Often achieved by embedding the culvert by 40% or more. Based on consultation with FLNR engineering experts, we considered crossings on streams with a channel width of <2m and a stream gradient of <8% as candidates for replacement with streambed simulations.
- Additional Substrate Material (EM) - Add additional substrate to the culvert and/or downstream weir to embed culvert and reduce overall velocity/turbulence. This option was considered only when outlet drop = 0, culvert slope <1.0% and stream width ratio < 1.0.
- Backwater (BW) - Backwatering of the structure to reduce velocity and turbulence. This option was considered only when outlet drop < 0.3m, culvert slope <2.0%, stream width ratio < 1.2 and stream profiling indicates it would be effective..
Cost estimates for structure replacement with bridges and embedded culverts were generated based on the channel width, slope of the culvert, depth of fill, road class and road surface type. Road details were sourced from FLNRORD (2020b) and FLNRORD (2020a) through bcfishpass. Interviews with Phil MacDonald, Engineering Specialist FLNR - Kootenay, Steve Page, Area Engineer - FLNR - Northern Engineering Group and Matt Hawkins - MoTi - Design Supervisor for Highway Design and Survey - Nelson were utilized to helped refine estimates. Base costs for installation of bridges on forest service roads and permit roads with surfaces specified in provincial GIS road layers as rough and loose was estimated at $12500/linear m and assumed that the road could be closed during construction. For streams with channel widths <2m, embedded culverts were reported as an effective solution with total installation costs estimated at $25k/crossing (pers. comm. Phil MacDonald, Steve Page). For larger streams, an additional 2m was added to the replacement structure’s estimated span width for each 1m of channel width >5m. For crossings with large amounts of fill, the size of replacement structure was increase by 3m for each 1m or fill >3m to account for cutslopes to the stream at a 1.5:1 ratio. To account for road type, a multiplier table was also generated to estimate incremental cost increases with costs estimated for structure replacement on paved surfaces, railways and arterial/highways costing up to 20 times more than forest service roads due to expenses associate with design/engineering requirements, traffic control and paving. The cost multiplier table (Table 3.5) should be considered very approximate with refinement recommended for future projects.
| Class | Surface | Class Multiplier | Surface Multiplier | Bridge $K/m | Streambed Simulation $K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest Service Road | Loose | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 25 |
| Resource | Loose | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 25 |
| Road Permit | Loose | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 25 |
| Unclassified | Loose | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 25 |
| Unclassified | Rough | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 25 |
| Local | Loose | 4 | 1 | 50.0 | 100 |
| Local | Paved | 4 | 2 | 100.0 | 200 |
| Rail | Rail | 5 | 2 | 125.0 | 250 |
| Highway | Paved | 10 | 2 | 250.0 | 500 |
3.3 Habitat Confirmation Assessments
Following fish passage assessments, habitat confirmations were completed in accordance with procedures outlined in the document “A Checklist for Fish Habitat Confirmation Prior to the Rehabilitation of a Stream Crossing” (Fish Passage Technical Working Group 2011). The main objective of the field surveys was to document upstream habitat quantity and quality and to determine if any other obstructions exist above or below the crossing. Habitat value was assessed based on channel morphology, flow characteristics (perennial, intermittent, ephemeral), the presence/absence of deep pools, un-embedded boulders, substrate, woody debris, undercut banks, aquatic vegetation and overhanging riparian vegetation. Criteria used to rank habitat value was based on guidelines in Fish Passage Technical Working Group (2011) (Table 3.2).
During habitat confirmations, to standardize data collected and facilitate submission of the data to provincial databases, information was collated on “Site Cards”. Habitat characteristics recorded included channel widths, wetted widths, residual pool depths, gradients, bankfull depths, stage, temperature, conductivity, pH, cover by type, substrate and channel morphology (among others). When possible, the crew surveyed downstream of the crossing to the point where fish presence had been previously confirmed and upstream to a minimum distance of 600m. Any potential obstacles to fish passage were inventoried with photos, physical descriptions and locations recorded on site cards. Surveyed routes were recorded with time-signatures on handheld GPS units.
Fish sampling was conducted a subset of sites when biological data was considered to add significant value to the physical habitat assessment information. When possible, electrofishing was utilized within discrete site units both upstream and downstream of the subject crossing with electrofisher settings, water quality parameters (i.e. conductivity, temperature and ph), start location, length of site and wetted widths (average of a minimum of three) recorded. For each fish captured, fork length and species was recorded, with results included within the fish data submission spreadsheet. Fish information and habitat data will be submitted to the province under scientific fish collection permit CB20-611971.
3.4 Reporting
This pdf report and an online interactive report were generated with bookdown (Xie 2016) from Rmarkdown (Allaire et al. 2020) documents processing raw data available at the New Graph Environment Github Site. In addition to numerous spatial layers sourced through the BC Data Catalogue, data inputs for this project can be sourced here and include:
Populated Fish Data Submission Spreadsheet Template - V 2.0, January 20, 2020
Populated pscis_assessment_template_v24.xls
Fish Habitat Model/bcfishpassoutputs.Custom Excel Spreadsheet detailing Phase 2 site:
- priority level for proceeding to design for replacement
- length of survey upstream and downstream
- a conservative estimate of mainstem habitat potentially available upstream of the crossing
- fish species confirmed as present upstream of the crossing
GPS tracks from field surveys.
4 Results and Discussion
Field assessments were conducted between August 26 2020 and September 05 2020 by Allan Irvine, R.P.Bio, New Graph Environment and Kyle Prince, P,Biol.
4.1 Phase 1
During 2020 field surveys, a total of 30 Phase 1 assessments were conducted with 12 crossings considered “passable”, 3 crossings considered “potential” barriers and 11 crossings considered “barriers” according to threshold values based on culvert embedment, outlet drop, slope, diameter (relative to channel size) and length (MoE 2011). Site details and photos are presented in [Appendix - Phase 1 Fish Passage Assessment Data and Photos] with maps stored here. A cost benefit analysis for Phase 1 sites that were determined to be barriers or potential barriers is presented in Table 4.1.
Barrier passability criteria used in this project follows MoE (2011), and reflects an estimation for the passage of a juvenile salmon or small resident rainbow trout (Clarkin et al. 2005 ; Bell 1991; Thompson 2013). As noted in Bourne et al. (2011), with a detailed review of different criteria in Kemp and O’Hanley (2010), passability of barriers can be quantified in many different ways. Fish physiology (i.e. species, length, swim speeds) as well as the temporal variation of physical characteristics (ex. due to flow volumes/velocities a particular culvert is passable 50% of the time to fish with a defined physiological capacity) make defining passability difficult with important implications for watershed connectivity modelling (Bourne et al. 2011; Shaw et al. 2016; Mahlum et al. 2014; Kemp and O’Hanley 2010).
| PSCIS ID | Stream | Road | Result | Habitat value | Stream Width (m) | Priority | Fix | Cost Est ( $K) | Habitat Upstream (km) | Cost Benefit (m / $K) | Cost Benefit (m2 / $K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3067 | Byman Creek | North Road | Barrier | High | 9.0 | high | OBS | 225 | 3.99 | 17.7 | 79.8 |
| 58158 | McDowell Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 2.5 | high | OBS | 3250 | 9.90 | 3.0 | 3.8 |
| 123463 | Victor Creek | Tyee Lake Road | Barrier | Medium | 1.8 | mod | SS-CBS | 200 | 1.80 | 9.0 | 8.1 |
| 124502 | Tributary to Bulkley River | Lawson Road | Barrier | Medium | 3.2 | mod | OBS | 500 | 8.68 | 17.4 | 27.8 |
| 197640 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Buck Flats FSR | Barrier | High | 5.1 | high | OBS | 500 | 19.96 | 39.9 | 101.8 |
| 197646 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Spur off Parrot FSR | Barrier | Medium | 1.4 | mod | SS-CBS | 25 | 5.11 | 204.4 | 143.1 |
| 197647 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Carrier FSR | Barrier | Low | 1.5 | low | SS-CBS | 25 | 1.78 | 71.2 | 53.4 |
| 197653 | Perow Creek | Perow Loop Rd | Barrier | Medium | 2.5 | mod | OBS | 1000 | 34.23 | 34.2 | 42.8 |
| 197654 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Balsam FSR | Barrier | Medium | 1.5 | mod | SS-CBS | 25 | 3.34 | 133.6 | 100.2 |
| 197655 | McInnes Creek | Highway 16 | Potential | Low | 1.0 | low | SS-CBS | 500 | 15.15 | 30.3 | 15.2 |
| 197656 | Tributary to Bulkley River | Highway 16 | Potential | Low | 5.0 | low | OBS | 2500 | 7.16 | 2.9 | 7.2 |
| 197657 | Perow Creek | Highway 16 | Potential | High | 3.2 | mod | OBS | 2500 | 0.19 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 197658 | Byman Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 11.1 | high | OBS | 5500 | 178.46 | 32.4 | 180.1 |
| 197662 | Richfield Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 12.5 | high | OBS | 6250 | 289.39 | 46.3 | 289.4 |
| 197663 | Johnny David Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 6.3 | high | OBS | 3150 | 85.39 | 27.1 | 85.4 |
| 197667 | Moan Creek | CN Railway | Barrier | High | 3.8 | high | OBS | 1250 | 9.68 | 7.7 | 14.7 |
| 197668 | Coffin Creek | CN Railway | Barrier | High | 5.3 | high | OBS | 1325 | 38.12 | 28.8 | 76.2 |
| 197669 | Riddeck Creek | Private | Barrier | High | 2.6 | high | OBS | 125 | 0.34 | 2.7 | 3.5 |
4.2 Phase 2
Habitat confirmation assessments were conducted at 23 sites with a total of approximately 15 km of stream assessed. Thirteen crossings were rated as high priorities for proceeding to design for replacement, Seven crossings were rated as moderate priorities for proceeding to design for replacement, 3 crossings were rated as a low priority and 0 rated as “no fix”. Results are summarized in Tables 4.2 - 4.5 with raw habitat and fish sampling data included in digital format as Attachment 2. Detailed information for each site assessed with Phase 2 assessments is included within site specific reports included as appendices to this document with pdf maps stored here.
| PSCIS ID | Stream | Road | UTM (9U) | Fish Species | Habitat Gain (km) | Habitat Value | Priority | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3042 | Barren Creek | Barren Creek FSR | 654451 6042827 | – | – | Medium | moderate | – |
| 3054 | Johnny David Creek | North road | 664881 6052688 | – | – | Medium | moderate | – |
| 3139 | Trib to McQuarrie Creek | North Road | 656657 6048544 | – | – | Medium | moderate | – |
| 58159 | McDowell Creek | Woodmere Nursery Road | 627643 6060449 | – | – | Medium | high | – |
| 123445 | Tyee Creek | Highway 16 | 627238 6061456 | – | – | Medium | high | – |
| 123446 | Tyee Creek | Tyee Lake Road | 627527 6061771 | – | – | Medium | low | – |
| 123794 | Tributary to Blunt Creek | Blunt Creek FSR | 616100 6106763 | – | – | Medium | moderate | – |
| 123795 | Tributary to Blunt Creek | Blunt Creek FSR | 615760 6106892 | – | – | Medium | moderate | – |
| 124487 | Porphyryr Creek | Highway 16 | 603073 6113363 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 124500 | Helps Creek | Lawson Road | 627552 6058697 | – | – | Medium | low | – |
| 124501 | Moan Creek | Lawson Road | 630661 6055713 | – | – | High | low | – |
| 124504 | Coffin Creek | Lawson Road | 634323 6054587 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 195288 | Gibson Creek | Schnider Road | 640899 6051559 | – | – | Medium | high | – |
| 195290 | Gibson Creek | Highway 16 | 640014 6051697 | – | – | Medium | high | – |
| 197360 | Riddeck Creek | Morice-Owen FSR | 649936 5992406 | RB, LSU | 1.2 | High | high | – |
| 197640 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Buck Flats Road | 654312 6012383 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 197658 | Byman Creek | Highway 16 | 666847 6044305 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 197662 | Richfield Creek | Highway 16 | 672405 6044146 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 197663 | Johnny David Creek | Highway 16 | 670241 6044772 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 197664 | Barren Creek | Highway 16 | 660454 6037919 | – | – | High | moderate | – |
| 197665 | Barren Creek | CN Railway | 660627 6037843 | – | – | High | moderate | – |
| 197667 | Moan Creek | CN Railway | 631092 6055866 | – | – | High | high | – |
| 197668 | Coffin Creek | CN Railway | 634336 6054609 | – | – | High | high | – |
| PSCIS ID | Embedded | Outlet Drop (m) | Diameter (m) | SWR | Slope (%) | Length (m) | Final score | Barrier Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3042 | No | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 23 | 21 | Barrier |
| 3054 | No | 0.76 | 3.00 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 40 | 34 | Barrier |
| 3139 | No | 1.02 | 1.20 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 27 | 34 | Barrier |
| 58159 | No | 0.36 | 1.00 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 14 | 36 | Barrier |
| 123445 | No | 0.90 | 0.90 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 50 | 42 | Barrier |
| 123446 | No | 0.00 | 1.85 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 21 | 24 | Barrier |
| 123794 | No | 0.25 | 0.90 | 1.9 | 5.0 | 13 | 31 | Barrier |
| 123795 | No | 0.17 | 0.90 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 15 | 29 | Barrier |
| 124487 | No | 2.50 | 5.00 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 99 | 42 | Barrier |
| 124500 | No | 0.00 | 1.50 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 14 | 21 | Barrier |
| 124501 | Yes | 0.30 | 1.60 | 2.8 | 6.0 | 25 | 34 | Barrier |
| 124504 | Yes | 0.20 | 3.00 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 16 | 24 | Barrier |
| 195288 | No | 0.30 | 1.20 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 11 | 31 | Barrier |
| 195290 | No | 0.66 | 0.80 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0 | 31 | Barrier |
| 197360 | No | 0.24 | 1.20 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 27 | 29 | Barrier |
| 197640 | No | 0.40 | 1.50 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 12 | 31 | Barrier |
| 197658 | No | 2.00 | 4.00 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 24 | 39 | Barrier |
| 197662 | No | 0.20 | 4.20 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 24 | 29 | Barrier |
| 197663 | No | 0.00 | 1.75 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 25 | 24 | Barrier |
| 197664 | Yes | 0.00 | 2.50 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 15 | 14 | Passable |
| 197665 | Yes | 0.00 | 0.90 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 25 | 14 | Passable |
| 197667 | No | 0.58 | 2.50 | 1.5 | 4.0 | 17 | 39 | Barrier |
| 197668 | No | 0.27 | 3.00 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 15 | 29 | Barrier |
| PSCIS ID | Stream | Road | Result | Habitat value | Stream Width (m) | Fix | Cost Est (in $K) | Habitat Upstream (m) | Cost Benefit (m / $K) | Cost Benefit (m2 / $K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3042 | Barren Creek | Barren Creek FSR | Barrier | Medium | 2.3 | SS-CBS | 25 | – | – | – |
| 3054 | Johnny David Creek | North road | Barrier | Medium | 2.6 | OBS | 387 | – | – | – |
| 3139 | Trib to McQuarrie Creek | North Road | Barrier | Medium | 3.3 | OBS | 162 | – | – | – |
| 58159 | McDowell Creek | Woodmere Nursery Road | Barrier | Medium | 2.2 | OBS | 125 | – | – | – |
| 123445 | Tyee Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | Medium | 2.1 | OBS | 6250 | – | – | – |
| 123446 | Tyee Creek | Tyee Lake Road | Barrier | Medium | 8.5 | OBS | 1000 | – | – | – |
| 123794 | Tributary to Blunt Creek | Blunt Creek FSR | Barrier | Medium | 1.9 | SS-CBS | 25 | – | – | – |
| 123795 | Tributary to Blunt Creek | Blunt Creek FSR | Barrier | Medium | 1.4 | OBS | 62 | – | – | – |
| 124487 | Porphyryr Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 10.7 | OBS | 10850 | – | – | – |
| 124500 | Helps Creek | Lawson Road | Barrier | Medium | 4.8 | OBS | 500 | – | – | – |
| 124501 | Moan Creek | Lawson Road | Barrier | High | 4.8 | OBS | 500 | – | – | – |
| 124504 | Coffin Creek | Lawson Road | Barrier | High | 5.8 | OBS | 530 | – | – | – |
| 195288 | Gibson Creek | Schnider Road | Barrier | Medium | – | OBS | 1000 | – | – | – |
| 195290 | Gibson Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | Medium | 2.0 | OBS | 4750 | – | – | – |
| 197360 | Riddeck Creek | Morice-Owen FSR | Barrier | High | 3.3 | OBS | 125 | 1200 | 9.6 | 31.7 |
| 197640 | Tributary to Buck Creek | Buck Flats Road | Barrier | High | 4.4 | OBS | 510 | – | – | – |
| 197658 | Byman Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 12.9 | OBS | 5550 | – | – | – |
| 197662 | Richfield Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 13.2 | OBS | 6250 | – | – | – |
| 197663 | Johnny David Creek | Highway 16 | Barrier | High | 6.6 | OBS | 3150 | – | – | – |
| 197664 | Barren Creek | Highway 16 | Passable | High | 7.2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 197665 | Barren Creek | CN Railway | Passable | High | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 197667 | Moan Creek | CN Railway | Barrier | High | – | OBS | 1250 | – | – | – |
| 197668 | Coffin Creek | CN Railway | Barrier | High | – | OBS | 1250 | – | – | – |
| PSCIS ID | Length surveyed upstream (m) | Channel Width (m) | Wetted Width (m) | Pool Depth (m) | Gradient (%) | Total Cover | Habitat Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3042 | 400 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 3 | moderate | – |
| 3054 | 725 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 5.3 | moderate | – |
| 3139 | 625 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 7.2 | abundant | – |
| 58159 | 440 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 2 | abundant | – |
| 123445 | 540 | 2.1 | 1.6 | – | 0.5 | moderate | – |
| 123446 | 100 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | abundant | – |
| 123794 | 525 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 9.6 | moderate | – |
| 123795 | 650 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 7.2 | abundant | – |
| 124487 | 540 | 10.7 | 9.9 | 0.3 | 4.8 | moderate | – |
| 124500 | 1100 | 4.8 | 4.1 | – | 0.8 | moderate | – |
| 124501 | 520 | 4.8 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 6.3 | moderate | – |
| 124504 | 415 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 2.3 | moderate | – |
| 195288 | 0 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| 195290 | 150 | 2 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.3 | abundant | – |
| 197360 | 1200 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 2.7 | moderate | high |
| 197640 | 535 | 4.4 | 2.2 | 0.3 | 2.5 | moderate | – |
| 197658 | 1400 | 12.9 | 7.9 | 0.6 | 2.1 | moderate | – |
| 197662 | 1200 | 13.2 | 9 | 0.8 | 2.1 | moderate | – |
| 197663 | 690 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 0.4 | 3 | moderate | – |
| 197664 | 800 | 7.2 | 4.7 | 3 | 3 | moderate | – |
| 197665 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 197667 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 197668 | 40 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Appendix - 197360 - Riddeck Creek
Site Location
PSCIS crossing 197360 is located on Riddeck Creek at km 47 of the Morice-Owen FSR accessed from Houston, BC. The Morice-Owen FSR is a forest tenure road and the responsibility of the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development (FLNR) - Nadina District. The area immediately to the south of the subject crossing is a conservation area manged by the Nature Trust of British Columbia.
Background
Riddeck Creek flows through an extensive area of wetland type habitat into the top end of Owen Lake approximately 1km downstream of the crossing. Owen Lake is drained by Owen Creek emptying into the Morice River approximately 20km to the north. At the crossing location, Riddeck Creek is a 4th order stream with a watershed area upstream of the highway of approximately 29km2. The elevation of the watershed ranges from a maximum of 1140 to 750m at PSCIS crossing 197360. Riddeck Creek is known to contain longnose sucker and rainbow trout usptream of the subject culvert (MoE 2020a). On the north side of the upper watershed, at an elevation of 1160m, are the 25ha Neuch Lakes. The limit of fish distribution in the Riddeck Creek mainstem is documented by Bustard and ssociates Ltd. (1999) as a 6m high waterfall located 2.4km upstream of the FSR with the three main tributary systems classified as either non-fish bearing or fish bearing for only short distances (<200m) from the mainstem. At the time of reporting, as an initiative of the Forest and Range Evaluation Program as well as the Bulkley Valley Research Centre, FLNR and the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy were undertaking a watershed status evaluation of the Owen Creek watershed (Pickard et al., n.d.). The evaluation uses remotely sensed and field based surveys to interpret the current functioning condition of the watershed as well as its possible future state as a result of continuing human and natural activities by ranking eight indicators of watershed pressure related to riparian health, fish passage and fine sediment delivery (Pickard et al. 2014; Porter et al. 2019).
PSCIS stream crossing 197360 was prioritized for follow up with a habitat confirmation through consultation with Lars Reese-Hansen (Aquatic Habitat Specialist, FLNR) and Don Morgan (Wildlife Habitat Specialist, MoE). They indicated (pers comm.) that following fish passage assessments in 2014 (implemented through watershed status evaluation field surveys throughout the Owen Creek watershed), Riddeck Creek upstream of the crossing contained the highest value habitat potentially blocked by a road-stream crossing barrier. A map of the watershed is provided in Attachment 1 – Map 093L.104.
Stream Characteristics at Crossing
At the time of the survey, the culvert was un-embedded, non-backwatered and considered a barrier to upstream fish passage. The pipe was 1.2m in diameter with a pipe length of 27m, a culvert slope of 1%, a stream width ratio of 1.8 and an outlet drop of 0.24m (Table 4.6). Water temperature was 15\(^\circ\)C, pH was 6.8 and conductivity was 140uS/cm. A survey was conducted with a remotely piloted vehicle immediately upstream and downstream of the crossing. The resulting images were stitched into a 3-dimensional model (4cm resolution) covering an area of approximatley 12ha presented [here](https://www.mapsmadeeasy.com/maps/public_3D/421d3b7404d74cacad6471612260bb41/ and downloadable as a google earth kmz file here.
Figure 4.1: Interactive 3D model of habitat immediately upstream and downstream of PSCIS crossing 197360.
Stream Characteristics Downstream
The stream was surveyed downstream from the culvert for 300m. Overall, total cover amount was rated as moderate with overhanging vegetation dominant. Cover was also present as small woody debris, large woody debris, undercut banks, deep pools, and instream vegetation (Table 4.8, Figure ??). The average channel width was 3.7m, the average wetted width was 3.2m and the average gradient was 1.1%. The dominant substrate was fines with gravels subdominant. A somewhat recent burn was noted within a forested area on left bank of stream. Habitat was rated as moderate as it was considered an important migration corridor with moderate value habitat for fry/juvenile salmonid rearing.
Stream Characteristics Upstream
The stream was surveyed upstream from 197360 for 1200m. Immediately upstream of the crossing for a distance of approximately 150m is a beaver influenced wetland with a beaver dam structure located approximately 40m upstream of the road. Within the area surveyed, total cover amount was rated as moderate with deep pools dominant. Cover was also present as small woody debris, large woody debris, boulders, undercut banks, and overhanging vegetation (Table 4.8, Figure ??). The average channel width was 3.3m, the average wetted width was 1.8m and the average gradient was 2.7%. Abundant gravels and small cobbles suitable for resident, fluvial, adfluvial and anadromous salmonid spawning were present throughout the area surveyed. Habitat value was rated as high for salmonid rearing and spawning.
PSCIS culvert 197669 was documented on Riddeck Creek, 1.2km upstream of the FSR and PSCIS crossing 197360. The culvert was un-embedded, non-backwatered and considered a barrier to upstream fish passage. The pipe was 1.25m in diameter with a pipe length of 6m, a culvert slope of 2%, a stream width ratio of 2.1 and an outlet drop of 0.45m (Table 4.7).
Fish Sampling
To assess potential impacts of the culvert on fisheries values in the stream, electrofishing was conducted upstream and downstream of the crossing. Two sites were sampled upstream and one site was sampled downstream. A total of 14 rainbow trout captured upstream with 2 rainbow trout captured downstream (Figure 4.4). Raw results are included in digital format as Attachment 2 and summarized in Tables 4.9 - 4.10 and Figure 4.2.
Structure Remediation and Cost Estimate
Structure replacement with a bridge (10m span) is recommended to provide access to the habitat located upstream of PSCIS crossing 197360. In addition to not facilitating high velocities and erosion due resulting from flow constriction, structures with large openings in relation to stream channel size have been demonstrated to reduce the likelyhood of structure blockage due to beaver (Jensen et al. 2001). The cost of the work is estimated at $125000 for a cost benefit of 9.6 linear m/$1000 and 31.7m2/$1000.
Conclusion
There is 1.2km of habitat upstream of crossing 197360 and downstream of PSCIS barrier culvert 197669. Habitat in this area was rated as high value for salmonid rearing/spawning. Remediation of PSCIS culvert 197669 would facilitate fish passage to an additional 1.5km of habitat upstream of the area surveyed and should also be considered. Densities of rainbow trout fry captured at upstream sites were higher than the density of fish captured downstream however this may have been a result of habitat differences and difficult electrofishing conditions downstream including thick shrub overhead cover and areas deep water. Although only rainbow trout were captured both upstream and downstream the stream contains habitat likely suitable for spawning and rearing for other species including lamprey, burbot, coho salmon and others. In order to delineate pre-road channel locations/conditions and to inform the positioning of a replacement bridge, a pre-road hydrology assessment could be undertaken. The Morice-Owen FSR is under tenure of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development. The crossing was ranked as a high priority for proceeding to design for replacement.
| Location and Stream Data |
|
Crossing Characteristics | – |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-05 | Crossing Sub Type | Round Culvert |
| PSCIS ID | 197360 | Diameter (m) | 1.2 |
| External ID | – | Length (m) | 27 |
| Crew | AI, KP | Embedded | No |
| UTM Zone | 9 | Depth Embedded (m) | – |
| Easting | 649936 | Resemble Channel | No |
| Northing | 5992406 | Backwatered | No |
| Stream | Riddeck Creek | Percent Backwatered | – |
| Road | Morice-Owen FSR | Fill Depth (m) | 2.5 |
| Road Tenure | FLNR Nadina 9947 | Outlet Drop (m) | 0.24 |
| Channel Width (m) | 2.2 | Outlet Pool Depth (m) | 1.6 |
| Stream Slope (%) | 1.5 | Inlet Drop | No |
| Beaver Activity | Yes | Slope (%) | 1 |
| Habitat Value | High | Valley Fill | Deep Fill |
| Final score | 29 | Barrier Result | Barrier |
| Fix type | Replace with New Open Bottom Structure | Fix Span / Diameter | 10 |
Photos: From top left clockwise: Road/Site Card, Barrel, Outlet, Downstream, Upstream, Inlet.
|
| Location and Stream Data |
|
Crossing Characteristics | – |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-05 | Crossing Sub Type | Round Culvert |
| PSCIS ID | 197669 | Diameter (m) | 1.25 |
| External ID | 14000079 | Length (m) | 6 |
| Crew | AI, KP | Embedded | No |
| UTM Zone | 9 | Depth Embedded (m) | – |
| Easting | 650567 | Resemble Channel | No |
| Northing | 5993274 | Backwatered | No |
| Stream | Riddeck Creek | Percent Backwatered | – |
| Road | Private | Fill Depth (m) | 0.3 |
| Road Tenure | unclassified | Outlet Drop (m) | 0.45 |
| Channel Width (m) | 2.6 | Outlet Pool Depth (m) | 0.7 |
| Stream Slope (%) | 4 | Inlet Drop | No |
| Beaver Activity | No | Slope (%) | 2 |
| Habitat Value | High | Valley Fill | Deep Fill |
| Final score | 31 | Barrier Result | Barrier |
| Fix type | Replace with New Open Bottom Structure | Fix Span / Diameter | 10 |
Photos: From top left clockwise: Road/Site Card, Barrel, Outlet, Downstream, Upstream, Inlet.
|
| Site | Location | Length Surveyed (m) | Channel Width (m) | Wetted Width (m) | Pool Depth (m) | Gradient (%) | Total Cover | Habitat Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 197360 | Downstream | 300 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.1 | moderate | moderate |
| 197360 | Upstream | 1200 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 2.7 | moderate | high |
| Site | Location | Width (m) | Length (m) | Area (m2) | Effort (s) | Effort (s/m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57 | Downstream | 2.0 | 9 | 18 | 94 | 5.2 |
| 55 | Upstream | 1.9 | 20 | 38 | 48 | 1.3 |
| 56 | Upstream | 2.0 | 10 | 20 | 33 | 1.6 |
| Site | Location | Fry | Juvenile |
|---|---|---|---|
| 57 | Downstream | 11.1 |
|
| 55 | Upstream | 15.8 |
|
| 56 | Upstream | 30 | 10 |
Figure 4.2: Densites of rainbow trout (fish/100m2) capture upstream and downstream of PSCIS crossing 197360.
Figure 4.3: Left: Typical habitat downstream of PSCIS crossing 197360. Right: Typical habitat upstream of PSCIS crossing 197360.
Figure 4.4: Rainbow trout captured upstream of PSCIS crossing 197360.
References
Allaire, JJ, Yihui Xie, Jonathan McPherson, Javier Luraschi, Kevin Ushey, Aron Atkins, Hadley Wickham, Joe Cheng, Winston Chang, and Richard Iannone. 2020. Rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R. https://github.com/rstudio/rmarkdown.
Bell, M. C. 1991. “Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria.” https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/fplibrary/Bell_1991_Fisheries_handbook_of_engineering_requirements_and.pdf.
Bourne, Christina, Dan Kehler, Yolanda Wiersma, and David Cote. 2011. “Barriers to Fish Passage and Barriers to Fish Passage Assessments: The Impact of Assessment Methods and Assumptions on Barrier Identification and Quantification of Watershed Connectivity.” Aquatic Ecology 45: 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-011-9362-z.
Bramblett, Robert, Mason Bryant, Brenda Wright, and Robert White. 2002. “Seasonal Use of Small Tributary and Main-Stem Habitats by Juvenile Steelhead, Coho Salmon, and Dolly Varden in a Southeastern Alaska Drainage Basin.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<0498:SUOSTA>2.0.CO;2.
Bustard, David, and ssociates Ltd. 1999. “Stream Inventory Owen Creek Watershed 1998.” http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/documents/r3189/finalreport_1123266138656_9957d84b557b40fe84fbab26f1511fa6.pdf.
Casselman, J, and D Stanley. 2010. “Bulkley/Fulton Watershed Fish Passage Culvert Assessment Program.” 2010. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r24143/8094011_Final_Report_Part_1328571584158_0bd68c842ee1398fde7c7fe754a7643122e5cb4e7c79ddd8436406d529bd7151.pdf.
Clarkin, K, A Connor, M Furniss, B Gubernick, M Love, K Moynan, and S WilsonMusser. 2005. “National Inventory and Assessment Procedure for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at Road-Stream Crossings.” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program. https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/publications/PDFs/NIAP.pdf.
Cote, David, P Frampton, M Langdon, and R Collier. 2005. Fish Passage and Stream Habitat Restoration in Terra Nova National Park Highway Culverts.
Diebel, M. W., M. Fedora, S. Cogswell, and J. R. O’Hanley. 2015. “Effects of Road Crossings on Habitat Connectivity for Stream-Resident Fish: STREAM-RESIDENT FISH HABITAT CONNECTIVITY.” River Research and Applications 31 (10): 1251–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2822.
Fish Passage Technical Working Group. 2011. “A Checklist for Fish Habitat Confirmation Prior to the Rehabilitation Fo a Stream Crossing.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/land-based-investment/forests-for-tomorrow/checklist-for-fish-habitat-confirmation-201112.pdf.
———. 2014. “Fish Passage Strategic Approach: Protocl for Prioritizing Sites for Fish Passage Remediation.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/fish-fish-habitat/fish-passage/strategic20approach20july202014.pdf.
FLNRORD. 2017. “Natural Resource Stewardship Monitoring and Assessment Report for the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Territory.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/integrated-monitoring/nrsmonitoringandassessmentreport-wetsuweten.pdf.
———. 2020a. “Digital Road Atlas (DRA) - Master Partially-Attributed Roads - Data Catalogue.” 2020. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/digital-road-atlas-dra-master-partially-attributed-roads.
———. 2020b. “Forest Tenure Road Section Lines - Data Catalogue.” 2020. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/forest-tenure-road-section-lines.
“Gitxsan Huwilp Government.” 2021. 2021. http://gitxsan.ca/.
Irvine, A. 2018. “Analysis and Priority Identification Of Existing Fish Passage Data: Bulkley River Watershed,” 114. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=56648.
Jensen, Paul G., Paul D. Curtis, Mark E. Lehnert, and David L. Hamelin. 2001. “Habitat and Structural Factors Influencing Beaver Interference with Highway Culverts.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 (2): 654–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784192.
Kemp, P. S., and J. R. O’Hanley. 2010. “Procedures for Evaluating and Prioritising the Removal of Fish Passage Barriers: A Synthesis: EVALUATION OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS.” Fisheries Management and Ecology, no–no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00751.x.
Mahlum, Shad, David Cote, Yolanda Wiersma, Dan Kehler, and K. Clarke. 2014. “Evaluating the Barrier Assessment Technique Derived from FishXing Software and the Upstream Movement of Brook Trout Through Road Culverts.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2013.825641.
McCarthy, M, and A Fernando. 2015. “2015 Inventory of High Priority Culverted Fish Passage Barriers in the Lower/Middle Skeena, Bulkley, Morice, and Babine River Watersheds.”
MoE. 2011. “Field Assessment for Determining Fish Passage Status of Closed Bottom Structures.” BC Ministry of Environment (MoE). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/land-based-investment/forests-for-tomorrow/field-assessment-for-determining-fish-passage-status-of-cbs.pdf.
———. 2020a. “Known BC Fish Observations and BC Fish Distributions.” Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy - Knowledge Management. 2020. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/known-bc-fish-observations-and-bc-fish-distributions.
———. 2020b. “Provincial Obstacles to Fish Passage - Data Catalogue.” Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy - Knowledge Management. 2020. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/provincial-obstacles-to-fish-passage.
Norris, Simon. 2020a. Bcfishobs. Hillcrest Geographics. https://github.com/smnorris/bcfishpass.
———. 2020b. Bcfishpass. Hillcrest Geographics. https://github.com/smnorris/bcfishpass.
———. 2020c. Fwapg. Hillcrest Geographics. https://github.com/smnorris/fwapg.
Norris, Simon, and Craig Mount. 2016. “Fish Passage GIS Analysis Version 2.2 – Methodology and Output Data Specifications.” https://data.skeenasalmon.info/dataset/bc-fish-passage-program.
Office of the Wet’suwet’en. 2013. “Wet’suwet’en Title and Rights Regarding Canada Department of Fisheries & Oceans and Pacific Trails Pipeline.” http://www.wetsuweten.com/files/PTP_FHCP_Response_to_DFO-25Nov13-Final.pdf.
“Office of the Wet’suwet’en.” 2021. 2021. http://www.wetsuweten.com/.
Pickard, Darcy, Marc Porter, Lars ReeseHansen, Richard Thompson, Derek Tripp, Brian Carson, Peter Tschaplinski, Troy Larden, and Simon Casley. 2014. “Fish Values: Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol. Version 1.0.”
Pickard, D, M Porter, L Reese-Hansen, R Thompson, D Tripp, D Morgan, B Carson, and N Tamburello. n.d. “DRAFT - Owen: Watershed Status Evaluation.”
Porter, Marc, Simon Casley, Darcy Pickard, Emily Snead, Russell Smith, and Katherine Wieckowski. 2019. “Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier 1 Watershed-Level Fish Values Monitoring Version 3.4.”
QGIS Development Team. 2009. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. http://qgis.osgeo.org.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Roni, Phil, Karrie Hanson, and Timothy Beechie. 2008. “Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–90. https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1.
Saldi-Caromile, K, K Bates, P Skidmore, J Barenti, and D Pineo. 2004. “Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft.” https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00043/wdfw00043.pdf.
Shaw, Edward A., Eckart Lange, James D. Shucksmith, and David N. Lerner. 2016. “Importance of Partial Barriers and Temporal Variation in Flow When Modelling Connectivity in Fragmented River Systems.” Ecological Engineering 91: 515–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.030.
Slaney, P. A, Daiva O Zaldokas, and Watershed Restoration Program (B.C.). 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Vancouver, B.C.: Watershed Restoration Program. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FFIP/Slaney_PA1997_A.pdf.
Smith, Jason J. 2018. “Assessing Barriers to Fish Passage Within the Wet’suwet’en First Nation Traditional Territory.” LGL Limited environmental Research associates and Yinka Dene Economic Development Limited Partnership Inc.
Swales, Stephen, and C. Levings. 1989. “Role of Off-Channel Ponds in the Life Cycle of Coho Salmon ( Oncorhynchus Kisutch ) and Other Juvenile Salmonids in the Coldwater River, British Columbia.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences - CAN J FISHERIES AQUAT SCI 46: 232–42. https://doi.org/10.1139/f89-032.
Thompson, Richard. 2013. “Assessing Fish Passage at Culverts – the Method, Its Metrics and Preliminary Findings from over 4,000 Assessments.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/fish-fish-habitat/fish-passage/assessing_fish_passage_at_culverts.pdf.
Wilson, Tim, and Ken Rabnett. 2007. “Fish Passage Assessment of Highway 16 and CN Rail in the Bulkley Watershed,” 124. https://data.skeenasalmon.info/dataset/fish-passage-assessment-highway-16-cn-rail-bulkley.
Xie, Yihui. 2016. Bookdown: Authoring Books and Technical Documents with R Markdown. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://github.com/rstudio/bookdown.